Demoting Jesus

by   Jim Baucom                                                                                                                                          Vol. XIII, No. 7, August 2000
 

[Introduction: This article was published on the Cooperative Baptist Fellowship's website under the above title. It is of particular interest to Virginia Baptists because Jim Baucom is pastor of Rivermont Avenue Baptist Church, Lynchburg, and he was elected at the 2000 CBF General Assembly as the Fellowship's moderator-elect. I have commented in several places within square brackets. TCP]

This new confessional statement [the Baptist Faith and Message adopted by the SBC in Orlando on Wednesday, 11 June 2000] infers that Jesus is not the complete and final revelation of God to humanity. With regard to the recent meeting of the Southern Baptist Convention, the issue of women in ministry has been a smokescreen.

This is the only issue the mainstream press has really understood, so it is the one upon which it has focused. [Comment: I am happy to agree with Rev. Baucom on this point. TCP] The denial of God's sovereignty in calling women to lead churches is a serious matter, but it is just the tip of the iceberg in a new confessional statement that undermines the most basic Baptist doctrines and threatens.

For instance, the revisions to the Baptist Faith and Message eliminate the role of Jesus as "the criterion by which the Bible is to be interpreted." Accordingly, this new confessional statement infers that Jesus is not the complete and final revelation of God to humanity, even transcending the Bible. [Comment: Baucom constructs a false dichotomy. Jesus is revelation in the flesh; the Bible is God's written revelation. There can be no contradiction between them. TCP]

The old Faith and Message insisted that the Bible was "God's Word without any mixture of error." Wasn't that good enough, or did we need to deify the actual book? I guess the current SBC leadership worried that Jesus might introduce falsehood to Biblical interpretation.

I have always taken great comfort in knowing beyond a doubt that the Bible was infallible. Now I can rest even more peacefully knowing that the new leaders of our denomination are also infallible interpreters, because that certainly takes the pressure off you and me to read God's Word for ourselves. [Comment: In the preceding two paragraphs Baucom resorts to the oldest debating trick in the book: When the facts are on your side, argue the facts. But when the facts are against you, argue the character of your opponents. Sarcasm is arguing character. TCP]

Without the "Jesus standard," authoritarian preachers and leaders are given license to interpret the Scriptures by their own criteria and then dictate their beliefs to those in their charge.

This result will only be more likely because the new and improved Faith and Message eliminates most references to the distinctive Baptist doctrines of "soul competency" and "priesthood of the believer" as well. These traditional Baptist principles have been affirmed in our confessional statements for centuries as basic to Baptist belief. [Comment: Incorrect. There was only one reference to "soul competency and priesthood of the believer" in the 1963 BFM, and that was in one sentence in the preamble. The new 2000 BFM also contains one reference to these doctrines in the preamble. TCP]

Until the Orlando meeting, the preamble to the Baptist Faith and Message has declared them central to Baptist practice. [Comment: The BFM was first adopted in June 1925. The 1925 BFM did not mention soul competency or the priesthood of the believer. The sentence of the 1963 BFM reads, "Baptists emphasize the soul's competency before God, freedom in religion, and the priesthood of the believer." The next sentence cautioned against interpreting these principles "to mean that there is an absence of certain definite doctrines ..." TCP] But no more. Only the last minute convention-floor heroics of a few thinking conservatives convinced the Baptist Faith and Message Statement committee to accept begrudgingly a one-sentence amendment conceding to the existence of these doctrines. [Comment: Wrong! Entirely incorrect. No motion was made on the convention floor about soul competency and/or priesthood of the believer. There was no need because the Study Committee which recommended the new statement had met Monday morning, two days before the SBC meeting began and three days before the business session which dealt with the BFM. At that Monday meeting the committee agreed to include the statement. Moreover, the statement was printed in the SBC Bulletin, second day (Wednesday) and was available to all messengers as they arrived that morning, before the session had even been called to order. TCP]

Baptists without soul competency -- the idea that every human is directly responsible to God -- are like lemonade without lemons. Every Baptist distinctive hinges on this one doctrine, as does the democracy of our nation, for that matter. And the priesthood of the believer -- access of the individual to God through no other entity except Jesus Christ (no priest or institution) -- is basic to the entire Protestant Reformation.

Once these doctrines are taken away, autonomy of the local church, freedom of religion, democratic governance of the local church, and other cherished Baptist distinctives fall like a house of cards.

None of this should surprise us considering the power-hungry antics of those who have taken the Southern Baptist Convention by force. This most recent confession of Southern Baptist belief was crafted by a 15-person "blue-ribbon" committee handpicked by Paige Patterson, president of the Convention. The commission that modified the Baptist Faith and Message in 1963, by contrast, was composed of elected leaders from each Baptist state convention.

I suppose the current SBC leadership knew better than to trust the people this time around. After all, no true Baptists would have freely given away the doctrines like "sole competency" and "priesthood of the believer" for which their spiritual ancestors died, would they?

[Closing Comment: The facts brought out above shatter the foundations of Rev. Baucom's diatribe. It is surprising and disappointing that the CBF would permit such a seriously flawed article to be placed on their website. Further, realizing that such an erroneous piece was written by the CBF moderator-elect raises serious questions about CBF leadership. TCP]